Now that I've read the study, I am very impressed with it. I liked it a lot, and I definitely recommend it to others for its clarity and helpfulness in understanding the issues. Furthermore, its use of prototype theory is well done.

It is also dated to the spring of 1999, which is a while ago. Have you done any more work in this area?

Stephen Carlson wrote:Now that I've read the study, I am very impressed with it. I liked it a lot, and I definitely recommend it to others for its clarity and helpfulness in understanding the issues. Furthermore, its use of prototype theory is well done.

It is also dated to the spring of 1999, which is a while ago. Have you done any more work in this area?

It is really good. I'm just finishing it. You're definitely going to be cited in my own work. Thank for you sharing, Kimmo. I have some vague memory that there's a dissertation in the work building on the same topic...?

Mike AubreyCanada Institute of Linguistics & Trinity Western University Graduate School

Kimmo, you might want to check out the relative lack of imperfects with πιπτειν. There is only 1 out of 90 verbs in NT, 10 out of 180 in Josephus. The imperfects tend to be iterative, typically multiple deaths in battle.

Now Mark 14:35-36 is a nice puzzle. is 'falling' and 'praying' a kind of rhetorical backgrounding? Or does it refer to an iterative falling and praying? (In other words, is the 'praying' iterative and assimilated to 'falling', or is 'falling' assimilated to an open-ended 'praying'?)

In the recent "Jesus in Jerusalem" (biblicallanguagecenter.com) I think that we discussed the iterative option, in Greek of course. I don't remember if everyone accepted that reading or not.

RandallButh wrote:Kimmo, you might want to check out the relative lack of imperfects with πιπτειν. There is only 1 out of 90 verbs in NT, 10 out of 180 in Josephus. The imperfects tend to be iterative, typically multiple deaths in battle.

Since I have not studied this verb in detail, my comments are tentative, but I am not convinced yet. Falling is something that often takes time. I don't think we have many texts about parachute jumping and all the things you can do while falling. Would this sound natural to you: ἄνθρωπος ἐπίπτει ἐκ δένδρου καὶ εἶπεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ πίπτειν οὐ δεινὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ παῦσαι πίπτειν? Do we have contexts that would call for a backgrounded process of falling where the imperfective aspect is avoided? If we do, then the conclusion that πίπτειν is an achievement is on more solid ground. If my example is not natural because πίπτειν is an achievement, then what verb will take its place in this kind of context? If πίπτειν is an achievement and there is no handy accomplishment synonym, it faces pressure to become an accomplishment in the right context. So I consider the achievement interpretation inherently unlikely, but I have not yet studied the examples.

Now Mark 14:35-36 is a nice puzzle. is 'falling' and 'praying' a kind of rhetorical backgrounding? Or does it refer to an iterative falling and praying? (In other words, is the 'praying' iterative and assimilated to 'falling', or is 'falling' assimilated to an open-ended 'praying'?)

The whole passage is interesting in that it does not have a single storyline perfective between 32 and 38 until the second time of praying other than ἤρξατο in 33 (this is narrative!). My initial reaction is that we are dealing with a discourse peak that is marked with the imperfectives. If so, it may not be so much iterative or backgrounding. What do you think?

Yes, 'fall' can naturally have time, though I find it an interesting verb in many languages, especially with a satellite 'goal' like 'at his feet', 'to the ground'. In Hebrew, for example, we never have the perfect-passive adjective *nafuul only the usually imperfective adjective nofel, but with perfective semantics.

On Mark 14:32-42, I think that the imperfectives are backgrounding. The aorists come in at 39-40 and the hhistorical present 'come' at 41 (where 'third time' is pretty close to achievement terminology, but is functioning perfectively in any case) serves as a backdrop for the betrayal to follow. It is also repeated in the imperfective gen absl. of the betrayal scene.

I realize my fingers were faster than my brain. A few corrections below.

KimmoHuovila wrote:Since I have not studied this verb in detail, my comments are tentative, but I am not convinced yet. Falling is something that often takes time. I don't think we have many texts about parachute jumping and all the things you can do while falling. Would this sound natural to you: ἄνθρωπος ἔπιπτεν ἐκ δένδρου καὶ εἶπεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ πίπτειν οὐ δεινὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ παῦσαι πίπτειν? Do we have contexts that would call for a backgrounded process of falling where the imperfective aspect is avoided? If we do, then the conclusion that πίπτειν is an achievement is on more solid ground. If my example is not natural because πίπτειν is an achievement, then what verb will take its place in this kind of context? If πίπτειν is an achievement and there is no handy accomplishment or activity synonym, it faces pressure to become an accomplishment or activity in the right context. So I consider the achievement interpretation inherently unlikely, but I have not yet studied the examples.

In case someone was wondering what form ἐπίπτει is, it is an imperfect that wants to be a historical present when it grows up.

Also, τὸ πίπτειν above is an activity, not an accomplishment. Perhaps I should use durative and punctual as better terms, as long as people don't confuse these terms with present and aorist stems.

RandallButh wrote:Yes, 'fall' can naturally have time, though I find it an interesting verb in many languages, especially with a satellite 'goal' like 'at his feet', 'to the ground'. In Hebrew, for example, we never have the perfect-passive adjective *nafuul only the usually imperfective adjective nofel, but with perfective semantics.

It is not treated as an accomplishment but as a state? The action itself being less important and the attitude it expresses more important for aspectual semantics?

On Mark 14:32-42, I think that the imperfectives are backgrounding. The aorists come in at 39-40 and the hhistorical present 'come' at 41 (where 'third time' is pretty close to achievement terminology, but is functioning perfectively in any case) serves as a backdrop for the betrayal to follow. It is also repeated in the imperfective gen absl. of the betrayal scene.

I realize that maybe we are saying the same thing using different terminology. I would not call these imperfectives backgrounding since they are storyline. The 'anomalous' marking is used to signal discourse peak. Perhaps this mismatch is what you mean by rhetorical backgrounding, which I initially took as backgrounding for a rhetorical purpose. I dismissed that option because the events are not background. Anyways, I suppose we mean the same thing.

Now that I've read the study, I am very impressed with it. I liked it a lot, and I definitely recommend it to others for its clarity and helpfulness in understanding the issues. Furthermore, its use of prototype theory is well done.

It is also dated to the spring of 1999, which is a while ago. Have you done any more work in this area?

Stephen

OK, I happened to read Kimmo's thesis again recently. It's even better than I remembered. I really recommend it.